Skip to main content
Glama

Nilyo

by com.nilyo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Posts: Remove post reaction

social_remove_post_reaction
Destructive

Remove the user's reaction from one exact post. Resolve post_id first; never use post URL/text unless another resolver explicitly converts it. Post ID: Exact provider/Unipile post id; LinkedIn commonly uses a preformatted/base64-style post ID. Obtain with: linkedin_search_posts -> result.id; linkedin_list_user_posts -> result.id; instagram_list_user_posts -> result.id Never pass: post text, author user ID, URL unless a resolver tool explicitly accepts it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_idYesExact provider post ID. Resolve/list the post first; never pass post text, author ID or a human description. Post ID: Exact provider/Unipile post id; LinkedIn commonly uses a preformatted/base64-style post ID. Obtain with: linkedin_search_posts -> result.id; linkedin_list_user_posts -> result.id; instagram_list_user_posts -> result.id Never pass: post text, author user ID, URL unless a resolver tool explicitly accepts it.
reactionYesThe reaction to remove: the emoji for Instagram, or the LinkedIn reaction type that was added (e.g. LIKE).
account_idNoOptional Nilyo connection ID (unipile_account_id from list_connected_accounts). Omit when the user has one account for this provider. When several exist, Nilyo never guesses: list them (display name, identifier, provider user ID), choose the one the user named or ask, and pass its ID here.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a destructive operation. It adds contextual behavior about ID resolution, but does not disclose edge cases such as what happens if no reaction exists or whether the action is reversible beyond what destructiveHint implies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then provides focused, high-value ID resolution rules. There is some redundancy between the description and the schema, but the warnings about never passing URL/text/author ID are important and justify their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation details: exact post ID format, how to obtain IDs, and account_id disambiguation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, though it does not describe response or no-op behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents post_id, reaction, and account_id in detail, including the emoji vs. LinkedIn reaction format and account disambiguation. The description repeats much of the same post_id guidance rather than adding substantial new parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the user's reaction from one exact post.' It also distinguishes this from related siblings like social_remove_comment_reaction and linkedin_react_to_post by explicitly scoping to posts and removal.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage guidance: resolve post_id first, never pass URL/text/author ID, and use specific list/search tools to obtain the ID. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for deleting comment reactions or chat reactions, but the post-scoped instructions and exclusions make the intended context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nilyo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources